Technology Associates, Inc., D/B/A Ranal Measurement Point Division, Auburn, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 10618-10619 [E9-5180]

Download as PDF 10618 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices from subsidiaries of its parent company abroad. The investigation revealed that workers performed some light repair functions of products, repackaged and shipped imported products, provided customer service and performed warehousing services. The functions, as described above, are not considered production of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. While the provision of warehousing and distribution services may result in repair and repackaging of the products, it is incidental to the provision of these services. No production took place at the subject facility nor did the workers support production of an article at any domestic affiliated location during the relevant period. The petitioner alleges that increased imports of toys negatively impacted workers at the subject facility. The allegation of the increase in imports of toys would have been relevant, if it was determined that workers of the subject firm manufactured toys. The workers were engaged in warehousing, sales and distribution of imported products. Therefore, increase in imports of toys is irrelevant to this investigation. The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination. After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met. Conclusion rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of March 2009. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–5178 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:01 Mar 10, 2009 separated from employment on or after June 18, 2007, through July 16, 2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.’’ DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–63,575] Philips Consumer Lifestyle, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Ryder Integrated Logistics, Ledgewood, NJ; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on July 16, 2008, applicable to workers of Philips Consumer Lifestyle, Ledgewood, New Jersey. The notice was published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2008 (73 FR 44284). The certification was amended on September 12, 2008 to include employees of the subject firm working at various locations in multiple States (TA–W–63,575A—TA–W–63,575H). The notice was published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2008 (73 FR 54859–54860). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of antennas and packaged electronic accessories. New information shows that workers leased from Ryder Integrated Logistics were employed on-site at the Ledgewood, New Jersey location of Philips Consumer Lifestyle. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Ryder Integrated Logistics working on-site at the Ledgewood, New Jersey location of the subject firm. The intent of the Department’s certification is to include all workers of Philips Consumer Lifestyle who were adversely affected by a shift in production of antennas and packaged electronic accessories to China. The amended notice applicable to TA–W–63,575 is hereby issued as follows: ‘‘All workers of Philips Consumer Lifestyle, including on-site leased workers from Ryder Integrated Logistics, Ledgewood, New Jersey, who became totally or partially Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of March 2009. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–5174 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–64,442] Technology Associates, Inc., D/B/A Ranal Measurement Point Division, Auburn, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated January 22, 2009, workers requested administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of Technologies Associates Inc., d/b/a Ranal, Measurement Point division, Auburn, Michigan (subject firm) to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The negative determination was issued on December 24, 2008. The Department’s Notice of negative determination was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2009 (74 FR 2139). The workers perform engineering service related to measurement points on component parts for the automotive industry. The denial was based on the finding that the subject firm does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(a)(2) of the Act. The workers’ request for reconsideration stated that ‘‘the petitioners were support personnel to General Motors * * * General Motors has trained workers in India to perform functions that we use[d] to perform and shipped work there. * * * If work was not being disbursed to India that work would be available to domestic workers.’’ Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances: (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous; E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM 11MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The Department has consistently determined that articles (whether tangible or intangible) produced incidental to the provision of a service are not considered articles for purposes of the Trade Act of 1974. Further, even if the ‘‘Measurement Point Drawings and Electronic Measurement files’’ were articles, for purposes of the Trade Act, the shift of production was not by the subject firm but by the firm’s customer (General Motors). In order to apply for TAA, the subject worker group must meet the group eligibility requirements for directlyimpacted (primary) workers under Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, based on a shift of production, the Department must find that there has been a shift in production by such workers’ firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision. After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the support documentation, and previously submitted materials, the Department determines that there is no new information that supports a finding that Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was satisfied and that no mistake or misinterpretation of the facts or of the law with regards to the number or proportion of workers separated from the subject firm during the relevant period. Conclusion rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of March 2009. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–5180 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:01 Mar 10, 2009 Jkt 217001 11, 2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.’’ DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–64,401] Qimonda 200MM Facility, Including OnSite Leased Workers From Tokyo Electron America, Nikon Precision, Inc., and Ebara Technologies, Inc., Sandston, VA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on December 11, 2008, applicable to workers of Qimonda 200MM Facility, Sandston, Virginia. The notice was published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79914). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of DRAM semiconductor wafers. New information shows that workers leased from Ebara Technologies, Inc., were employed on-site at the Sandston, Virginia location of Qimonda 200MM Facility. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of Qimonda 200MM Facility to be considered leased workers. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Ebara Technologies, Inc., working on-site at the Sandston, Virginia location of the subject firm. The intent of the Department’s certification is to include all workers employed at Qimonda 200MM Facility, Sandston, Virginia who were adversely affected by a shift in production to a foreign country followed by increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with the DRAM semiconductor wafers produced by the subject firm. The amended notice applicable to TA–W–64,401 is hereby issued as follows: ‘‘All workers of Qimonda 200MM Facility, including on-site leased workers from Tokyo Electron America, Nikon Precision, Inc., and Ebara Technologies, Inc., who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 11, 2007 through December PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10619 Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of March 2009. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–5179 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–65,264] Auto Truck Transport, Mount Holly, North Carolina Terminal, Mount Holly, NC; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 17, 2009, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Auto Truck Transport, Mount Holly, North Carolina Terminal, Mount Holly, North Carolina. The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 4th day of March 2009. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–5187 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–65,152] CCL Container, Hermitage, PA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 6, 2009, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of CCL Container, Hermitage, Pennsylvania. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM 11MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10618-10619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5180]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,442]


Technology Associates, Inc., D/B/A Ranal Measurement Point 
Division, Auburn, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated January 22, 2009, workers requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
Technologies Associates Inc., d/b/a Ranal, Measurement Point division, 
Auburn, Michigan (subject firm) to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA).
    The negative determination was issued on December 24, 2008. The 
Department's Notice of negative determination was published in the 
Federal Register on January 14, 2009 (74 FR 2139). The workers perform 
engineering service related to measurement points on component parts 
for the automotive industry. The denial was based on the finding that 
the subject firm does not produce an article within the meaning of 
Section 222(a)(2) of the Act.
    The workers' request for reconsideration stated that ``the 
petitioners were support personnel to General Motors * * * General 
Motors has trained workers in India to perform functions that we use[d] 
to perform and shipped work there. * * * If work was not being 
disbursed to India that work would be available to domestic workers.''
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative reconsideration may be 
granted under the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;

[[Page 10619]]

    (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The Department has consistently determined that articles (whether 
tangible or intangible) produced incidental to the provision of a 
service are not considered articles for purposes of the Trade Act of 
1974. Further, even if the ``Measurement Point Drawings and Electronic 
Measurement files'' were articles, for purposes of the Trade Act, the 
shift of production was not by the subject firm but by the firm's 
customer (General Motors).
    In order to apply for TAA, the subject worker group must meet the 
group eligibility requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers 
under Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, based on a 
shift of production, the Department must find that there has been a 
shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign 
country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which 
are produced by such firm or subdivision.
    After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the 
support documentation, and previously submitted materials, the 
Department determines that there is no new information that supports a 
finding that Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was satisfied and 
that no mistake or misinterpretation of the facts or of the law with 
regards to the number or proportion of workers separated from the 
subject firm during the relevant period.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of March 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-5180 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P